ENV-NCP-TOGETHER
Specific Programme Cooperation in FP7
- Evaluation criteria for a proposal -
Dr. Shilpi SAXENA
Partner im EU-Project "Environment NCP Together"
National Contact Point Environment, Germany
Proposal evaluation - timeline
Project Idea
Project Preparation
Write a Proposal
Sub-mission
Evaluation How to negotiate
Project Management
t=0 t=9 month t=36 - 48 month
XXXX 1. S&T Quality
2. Implementation
3. Impact
Eligibility criteria Evaluation criteria - ref participation - - ref submitted proposal -
1. Who can participate?(universities, research institutions, SME, etc.)
2. Which countries?1
(EU MS*, EU AC**, ICPC***)
2a. Minimum eligibility?min. 3 independent legal entities 3 MS or AC
2b. Where do ICPCs come in?if specifically stated in call text
1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html; or: Annex 1 of Work programme
* MS: Member States; ** AC: Associated Countries; *** ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Countries
Eligibility criteria - ICPC countries
1 ICPC List: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/who_en.html
27EU Member
States(MS)
More than 140 International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC = Africa, Asia, Latin America)
Other ICPCs (''High Income Countries'' = USA, Canada, …)
Turkey, Croatia, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina,
Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Republic of Moldova
EU Associated Countries
(AC)
ICPC
Money comes from MS / AC
to EU minimum eligibility
PART A - Administrative part
- Summary
- Participants
- Financial breakdown
- Workplan tables
PART B – Main part
- Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1
- Management Structure Section B.2.1
- Consortium Section B.2.3
- Dissemination Section B.3.2
- Ethical Issues Section B.4
Proposal structure - necessities
You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner (see highlighted areas)
Project Evaluation criteria
1. S&T Quality
2. Implementation
3. Impact
PART B – Main part
- Scientific & Technological Quality Section B.1
- Management Structure Section B.2.1
- Consortium Section B.2.3
- Dissemination Section B.3.2
- Ethical Issues Section B.4
Where to start – Example Environment
• Work Programme 2013 & its call fiche
• FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage (81.3 % of overall budget – 248 m €)
- Deadline 16/10/2012 (first stage), ~28/02/2013 (second stage)- 22 topics (all CP)
• Guide for applicants (CP, CP-two-stages and CSA-CA)
- Call page of Participants Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/appmanager/participants/portal
- Preparing & submitting your proposal:
GfA, Electronic Submission Service (SEP)
Source: EU Commission
Evaluation process & planning
Once you have submitted a proposal, what’s next?
- Evaluation planning calls: 1-stage, 2-stage (stage 1) (deadline 16/10/2012)
Submission Individual assessment
Consensus discussions
Review Panel
dead
line
EligibilityRanked
listFinalisation
Info to applicants
Rejection list
Rejection list
Info to applicants
16/1
0/20
12
3 - 6 independent experts
Firs
t wee
k of
N
ovem
ber
Mid
D
ecem
ber
Before Xmas break
Thi
rd w
eek
of
Nov
embe
r
Firs
t wee
k of
D
ecem
ber
Source: EU Commission
Focus on evaluation criteria
• Read carefully instructions: Guide for Applicants
• Evaluation criteria: Annex II to the WP2013
• Consider: page limits indication (…less is more)
• Make sure evaluators can find easily response to evaluation sub-criteria
Source: EU Commission; Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4
EVALUATION CRITERIA vs
SCORES
FP7-ENV-2013-one-stage
FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage
stage 1
FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage
stage 2
FP7-ENV-2013-WATER
INNO&DEMO
S/T quality 3 / 5 4 / 5 4 / 5 3 / 5
Implementation 3 / 5 -- 3 / 5 3 / 5
Impact 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 5 3 / 5
Overall threshold 10 / 15 8 / 15 11 / 15 10 / 15/ 10
In the end effect:10 out of 15 points in ENV is not
enough for mainlisting!!
Summary of mandatory page limits
Guide for Applicants: CP FP7-ENV-2012-two-stage
Excl. Gantt chart 1.3.ii), tables 1.3a-e; Pert diagramm under 1.3
Evaluation criteria and scores
Source: EU Commission
S/T QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT
“Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)”
“Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management”
“Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results”
- Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
- Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
- Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
- Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures
- Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants
- Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
- Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment …)
- Contribution, at the European [and/or international] level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity
- Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property.
Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals
SCORING
MEANING
0.0The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot
be judged due to missing or incomplete information
0.5
1.0Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are
serious inherent weaknesses.
1.5
2.0Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are
significant weaknesses.
2.5
3.0Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements
would be necessary.
3.5
4.0Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although
certain improvements are still possible.
4.5
5.0Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the
criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Evaluation not done by EU or NCPs but by individuals!
Evaluation Summary Report – how it could look like
1. Scientific / technological quality
• ''….demonstrates an excellent level of integration and multidisciplinarity……The S/T approach is very sound and established in a stepwise manner…..The tasks, the deliverables and the work plan are very well described and logically spread over the 48 months duration…'' (5,0)
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
• ''The consortium is balanced with regards to expertise, although the partners performing … appear to be more experienced than the … partners. There is some concern that the budget may be somewhat high and disproportionately allocated.'' (3,5)
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results
• ''The decision support system will assist in the transfer of project results to politicians, …managers and other stakeholders….The web site could be a useful outlet, but details on its specifications and operation are not provided.'' (2,0)
Where you need to contribute as an ICPC – in short –
The coordinator will give send you via the Electronic Submission Service (SEP)
the respective forms where you need to contribute
• Areas for your contribution:
- estimate of your budget
- your info as an individual partner
- data on your (sub-)project
- your resources (which you will bring into project)
1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed
• Limited time & space to convince
• Make it clear, and be objective - assess risks of failure
• Provide references, incl. your currently related activities
Source: EU Commission
1. S / T quality – a bit more detailed (contd.)
Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4
1.1 Concept and objectives- What is the overall goal?- Which specific results are to be achieved?
1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art- What is the status of the research?- How does the project go beyond that?
1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan- Explain the methods of the sub-projects and /
or work packages- Define indicators in order to verify the goal
achievements You would mainly contribute where necessary as a partner
2. Implementation – a bit more detailed
Source: EU Commission
• Role & contributions: every single partner
• Proposal: how partners' activities will be integrated robust consortium
• Justify resources allocated
• Do not exceed maximum EU contribution defined in WP2013
- Reimbursement rates vs. types of activities: from 50% to 100%
BE REALISTIC
2. Implementation – a bit more detailed (contd.)
2.1 Management structure and procedures relevant for coordinator
2.2 Individual Participants- Are the project partners suited for the tasks?
(experience, publications, infrastructure)
2.3 Consortium as a whole aspects which coordinator needs to explain
2.4 Resources to be committed- Which resources will the partners contribute? (equipment, personnel, infrastructure)
Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4
3. Impact – a bit more detailed
Source: EU Commission
• Explain how project & potential outcome(s) will contribute to impacts
- accounts for 1/3 of overall score
• Dissemination, exploitation & potential use of projects results a 'must‘
- IPR (http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/)
- Open access policy (OpenAIRE, www.openaire.eu)If you are a grant recipient of FP7 (e.g. Environment) – youare required to deposit your publications!
3. Impact – Work Programme 2012* Environment -
Challenge 6.1 Coping with climate change
ENV.2012. 6.1-1
Funding scheme:
EU contribution
One or more proposals can be selected
Expected Impact: Contribution to WMO Global framework for Climate Services….New business opportunities for SMEs
• Prior to the publication of the official WP, an Orientation paper is released, does not include the call-fiche and is not legally binding
3. Impact – a bit more detailed (contd.)
3.1 Expected Impacts listed in the Work Progr. aspects which coordinator needs to explain
3.2 Dissemination and Exploitation & Management of IP
- Which useable results can be expected for which user / target groups? (SME, industry, consumers, research)
Instructions for drafting part B: Collaborative Project (CP), Annex 4
Evaluation: specific feature…
• The innovation dimension of proposals
- evaluated under criterion ''Impact''
- be reflected in description of objectives & scope
- expected impact
Some hints…
• Pay attention to:
- formal criteria (font, page limitation, page margin)
- proposal quality (your contribution) i.e. include relevant data, numbers
• Layout: use bullet points, diagrams, charts
• Write understandably (evaluators: generalists & specialists)